The broadening of freedom of expression in the past few years has come to an abrupt halt with yesterday’s decision released by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The William Whatcott decision affirms the ability of human rights tribunals in Saskatchewan (and by extension in Alberta and British Columbia which have similar provisions in their human rights codes) to punish offensive public speech.

Since most publications are accessible on the Internet throughout Canada, the SCC ruling gives human rights tribunals in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia the right to hold hearings parsing language in any publication available on the Internet to determine their degree of offensiveness.

Here’s the test. Would a “reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances” ... view the expression as likely to expose a person or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination” such as race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But it’s okay to ridicule, belittle or otherwise affront the dignity of a person or persons on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Also, repugnant or offensive expressions are fine provided they don’t expose a vulnerable person or group to hatred. Hatred requires detestation or vilification that goes beyond mere disdain or dislike.

Got all that? You can express a repugnant or offensive opinion or ridicule or belittle or affront the dignity of a person or group provided it does not go so far as to expose a vulnerable person or group to detestation or vilification.

Being merely being hurtful and offensive is okay however. These distinctions make it difficult for anyone other than a human rights expert to confidently know whether any hard hitting publication crosses the line. And any member of a vulnerable group may file a human rights complaint at no cost and leave it to a human rights tribunal to render a decision on any publication deemed objectionable.

It matters not whether the person who published the offensive words intended to incite hatred.

There’s no defence of sincerely held belief. It doesn’t matter if anybody has suffered actual harm; reasonable belief in the risk of harm is sufficient.

It doesn’t matter if the words are religiously motivated. It doesn’t even matter if the words are factually accurate. That’s not a defence. The manner in which truthful statements are expressed can meet the definition of hate speech.

So, we had better tiptoe around criticism of any religion no matter how odious we may find some of its practices.

That’s a good reason to justify censorship of such books as Going Clear: Scientology Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright.

The book is available in the U.S., but not in Canada. You’d better be careful on how you express your criticism of Chief Theresa Spence’s management of Attawapiskat lest she feels she’s been exposed to detestation or vilification. But it doesn’t matter if she has actually been exposed to detestation or vilification, only if a reasonable person would view the criticism as being likely to expose her to detestation or vilification.

If the Whatcott decision doesn’t make it a human rights offence to insult a religion, it comes pretty close. That can only perpetuate the use of religion to further human rights abuses. Maybe we should be taking a fresh look at Salman Rushdie’s Satantic Verses.

The real problem with the Whatcott decision lies in the censorship and self-censorship it is bound to create. The Supreme Court has declared that “[p]eople are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects.”

Whatcott Decision: A Good Day For the Human Rights Industry

The broadening of freedom of expression in the past few years has come to an abrupt halt with yesterday’s decision released by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The William Whatcott decision affirms the ability of human rights tribunals in Saskatchewan (and by extension in Alberta and British Columbia which have similar provisions in their human rights codes) to punish offensive public speech.

Since most publications are accessible on the Internet throughout Canada, the SCC ruling gives human rights tribunals in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia the right to hold hearings parsing language in any publication available on the Internet to determine their degree of offensiveness.